« The Logic of Life and Guest Blogger Bryan Caplan | Main | Bargaining theory »
Why are so many lawyers politicians?
Johan Richter, a loyal MR reader, writes to me:
As the primary elections are coming up is is interesting to note that so many of the contenders are lawyers, something that is also true of the members of Congress, where I believe half are lawyers. Why are so many US politicians lawyers? It seems odd considering that A) Legal training seems unnecessary for performing the main job of a politician, regardless of whether one takes that to be courting public opinion or governing the country. And there is hardly any deficit of lawyers in Washington to ask for advice if legal knowledge turns out to be needed. B) Being a lawyer isn’t very prestigious as far as I know. Being a military, doctor, police officer, businessman or perhaps even a academic would surely be regarded by many voters as more respectable professions than being a lawyer. C) Other countries don’t have nearly the same over-representation of lawyers in their parliaments as the US does.
I thought Google would yield a paper on this question but I can't find it. My guess is that lawyers are good at fundraising and good at developing personal contacts. This helps explain why fewer politicians are lawyers in many other countries; money is more important in American politics. A lawyer also has greater chance to exhibit the qualities that would signal success in politics, such as the ability to persuade and the ability to speak well on one's feet. Not to mention that many lawyers have ambition.
Natasha, who is a lawyer, adds that law generates an outflux of people to many other fields, not just politics. There is also a path-dependence effect, by which a previous presence of politicians in law breeds the same for the future. What else do you all know about this?
Addendum: I've posted a version of this query over at Volokh.com as well; I expect they will have something to say about the question.
Second addendum: Over at VC, Shawn says:
You will also find that Real Estate and Insurance agents are disproportionately represented in politics, at least at the more local levels.
These professions (along with practicing law) provide the career flexibility for would be politicians to put their jobs on hold or scale them down a few degrees while pursuing elected office or serving is such an office.
This flexibility also is what attracts people who wish to be career politicians, so that they have a job to fall back on between election seasons that won't trap them into long term obligations, keeping them from the next election cycle or serving if elected.
These careers also give would be politicians a good place to get recognition and network within their communities.
Third addendum: Bob Tollison writes to me: "McCormick and I devote a chapter 5 to why lawyers dominate legislatures in our book-- Politicians, Legislation and the Economy, Martinus Nihoff, 1981. Lawyers are better at combining being in the legisture with making outside income. Hence, lawyers dominate low legislative pay states because seats have a higher present value. Women dominate high pay states."
Posted by Tyler Cowen on January 23, 2008 at 06:14 PM in Law, Political Science | Permalink
Comments
Maybe because being a lawyer sucks. So lawyers look for other opportunities to make a living more often than doctors, military, academics etc. And since others have blazed that trail alread, politics is a good option.
Posted by: Danny from Milwaukee at Jan 23, 2008 6:05:24 PM
I think this would make for a very interesting research project. You also have to consider that many people have law degrees, but only practiced traditional law for a short time if at all. Path-dependence might be a good answer since many of the founders had legal training, but I feel like it isn't the whole story. The real question is why it is so in the U.S., but not nearly the same way with other countries. There are plenty of reasons why lawyers are more likely to go into politics, but why the large over-representation. I wouldn't be surprised if lawyers give more money to political campaigns than average and particularly to other lawyers. I find the money hypothesis appealing. Lawyers on average aren't usually wealthier than doctors or businessmen, but the average lawyer is more politically ambitious than either group. Since money is such an incredible barrier in American politics at the Federal level, I would suspect that the money (them being wealthy on average with good fundraising prospects) and ambition drive most of the story. One way is to compare State Legislators to Federal Congressman. You're able to control for many of the differences within the population while changing how much the race will cost. Might be a way to start.
Posted by: John at Jan 23, 2008 6:11:15 PM
My guess (as a political science professor who never really had any desire to get a J.D.): many politicians went to law school after being political science majors in college because they "liked politics." I think it's almost seen as a career path.
Lawyers (and medical doctors, who are also overrepresented in Congress) probably also have more of the flexibility in time that it takes to be a state legislator in the U.S., which doesn't pay enough to be a full-time occupation in most states; they can shut down or backburner the law practice for 2-4 months of the year while they're at the state capital and earn money the rest of the year, which isn't an option for most folks. And since it's hard to get into Congress without experience at the state level, that could be a major factor limiting the career paths of other potential politicians.
Posted by: Chris Lawrence at Jan 23, 2008 6:11:55 PM
I believe Bryan Caplan touches on this issue in his book - Myth of the Rational Voter. As Caplan puts it, lawyers are professionally trained to advocate sincerely and passionately for a particular position, regardless of whether or not they personally believe in it. This skill comes in handy for a professional politician.
Posted by: Don at Jan 23, 2008 6:15:06 PM
Actually, I think that in many practice areas
being a lawyer offers a fairly holistic, "top-down" view of the subject
matter, whether that be a business, industry, deal, piece of litigation.
The same seems true of government, and so an aptitude
(or preference) for that aspect of the law wouild seem to translate
to government well.
And I don't agree that law is necessarily not prestigious. The prevailing
opinion of laywers may be one of dislike, but it is also that lawyers are
intelligent. Such a presumption would seem to be positive for a
lawyer-candidate when running for office.
Posted by: MLKH at Jan 23, 2008 6:15:49 PM
Compared to most other countries, the US has an awful lot more lawyers, and an awful lot more smart and ambitious people going to law school. The main reason seems to be that college is viewed much less as a vocational training than in other countries, and especially so by highly talented people with lots of professional potential. These people then go to law (or business) school after working in some random analyst job for a few years after college, but ultimately decide that being a lawyer for the rest of their life just isn't all that interesting.
Posted by: Commenterlein at Jan 23, 2008 6:17:29 PM
many people who would have ordinarily gone into politics, bide their time by going into law first. this applies to those for whom politics is a family business (e.g., Ted Kennedy, Al Gore); and to those who are interested in government and politics (such as poli-sci majors), but who need to get a job and suddenly realize that there are no english or philosophy factories out there.
the other reason is that many of the "best" (and by best, you might as well substitute "most prestigious") legal jobs are in government - the top of the heap is often considered being a clerk for a judge, but there is also the chance to work in the Solicitor General's office, or the DOJ (in DC), or working the regional US Attorneys' offices around the country. these jobs naturally lead to politics (e.g., giuliani).
two other categories of lawyer-politicians apply more generally to pretty much any occupation. one is for those who have made shit-tons of cash, and thus can run for government just like all the other gazillionaires (compare Edwards with Corzine). finally, there are those who married in law school, were fortunate enough that their spouse did very well, and could then ride their spouses' coat-tails to power (compare Hillary with Elizabeth Dole).
and then there's Obama. as with so many other categories, he just doesn't fit the mold.
Posted by: esq at Jan 23, 2008 6:20:34 PM
To drive the discussion in the direction of the political science literature, there's Fox and Lawless (AJPS, 2005), Fowler (PS, 1995), and Maestas et al. (APSR, 2006) for starters.
Posted by: Chris Lawrence at Jan 23, 2008 6:22:37 PM
I don't have any insight here as to why we have so many lawyers in politics, and I apologize for commenting anyway. That said....
I am personally disturbed by the large number of lawyers in politics. Lawyers are effectively trained that your gain is my loss, that I can gain only if you lose. This is probably why lawyers are more likely than any other profession to not tip at all in restaurants (US anyway).
Why is this disturbing? Because economics is not zero sum, and often the best path, regardless of one's normative biases, is counterintuitive, especially for those trained in zero sum thinking. This explains why someone like John Edwards promises "to stick it to the corporations" (I'm paraphrasing, although I wouldn't be surprised if that was verbatim), despite the fact that the people most hurt by corporate taxation in the long run are workers.
Not to mention the fact that zero profits equals zero employees, a concept I suspect he hasn't thought of. Certainly his beloved union organizers haven't thought of it, or at least hope to con their victims into beleiving.
Posted by: happyjuggler0 at Jan 23, 2008 6:24:17 PM
Mankiw on why there are so few economists in politics.
Posted by: Biomed Tim at Jan 23, 2008 6:26:15 PM
It seems like a lot of the lawyers contending in the primaries started their careers in the district atorneys office doing public prosecution. Rising in ranks and gaining popularity by winning trials enabled them to get seats in important offices like mayors, senators and such.
In Denmark however, the current and former prime minister are economists.
Posted by: Sune at Jan 23, 2008 6:29:38 PM
Tocqueville has a whole section on how Lawyers are the natural aristocracy in a democracy and how legal training is important in officers of a democracy.
Posted by: Charles at Jan 23, 2008 6:32:03 PM
I don't know the exact numbers but in Brazil a lot of politicians are lawyers too. In fact, this is true since the student's political movement (which in Brazil tend to be the begging of most politicians' career) while people are still in college and the students from Law School tend to be extremely overrepresented.
Posted by: antonio at Jan 23, 2008 6:34:06 PM
Most elected politicians are legislators. Their job is to make laws. Lawyers are those professionals whose job it is to study and apply laws. They're the best qualified to make laws. The mystery, given the low reputation of lawyers, is why the public so often rightly elects lawyers.
Posted by: Zippy at Jan 23, 2008 6:34:14 PM
Australia has a very similar situation, with economists coming in second!
Posted by: Patrick at Jan 23, 2008 6:35:07 PM
In Florida (at least until recently), the only advertising a lawyer could do was to put his or her name on a political campaign. Win, lose, or draw, the lawyer could count on some business. Many stayed in politics.
Regards
Posted by: John Johns at Jan 23, 2008 6:38:35 PM
Zippy is right -- remember that the US legal system is more prescriptive than common law. It takes lawyers to write the laws, understand the laws, bend the laws and "reform" the laws they break.
Lawyers are upper caste; they speak a secret language the voters do not understand, but voters DO realize they need to reelect a lawyer if they are going to get anywhere.
If laws had to be written in plain language, the path-dependency would end.
Posted by: David Zetland at Jan 23, 2008 6:40:46 PM
Haven't you asked the question backwards? I think you are wondering why so many politicians are lawyers rather than the reverse.
Posted by: Eric H at Jan 23, 2008 6:47:17 PM
"B) Being a lawyer isn’t very prestigious as far as I know." I couldn't agree more. Attached is a NY Times article from 2 weeks ago solidifying that statement.
Posted by: Mike Mogie at Jan 23, 2008 6:54:59 PM
A couple of thoughts:
1) Your title question is phrased wrong. The issue is not why so many lawyers are politicians, it is why so many politicians are lawyers. And, yes, that is a lawyerly distinction, but it is also one likely to be made by an economist.
2) In order to be a successful politician, you need to convince people you will be good at the job. Convincing voters is obvious, but you also need to convince a variety of backers: fundraisers, party leaders, special interests. These people are concerned with the type of legislator you will be, rather than the type of person you are (ultimately, the benefit to them translates into what kind of legislation is passed or not). There is obviously going to be a strong correlation between your understanding of the law and how it works and your ability to be an effective legislator (particularly since political compromises are often worked out in the details of a bill).
3) People with law degrees correlate with three traits: intelligence, strong work ethic, and an interest in policy and government. Presumably, those traits correlate strongly with successful politicians, as well, regardless of whether they are JD's or not.
4) This is the dumbest thing I have read today: "Lawyers are effectively trained that your gain is my loss, that I can gain only if you lose. This is probably why lawyers are more likely than any other profession to not tip at all in restaurants (US anyway)."
Posted by: Dave at Jan 23, 2008 6:56:47 PM
Lawyers can speak about the details of a law much more effectively than someone from a different profession. Furthermore, they can usually write well quickly and to the point.
Look at the laws of any state - these are things that a politician either needs to understand himself or have someone explain to him. Obviously, lawyers have an easier time "getting involved" with legislation as an insider. Furthermore, one of the big tasks of government appointees is the drafting and implementation of new legislation. If you want to go into state government as a representative, it is helpful to have some experience a state level appointment position - and lawyers have the relevant experience for that.
Posted by: hrh at Jan 23, 2008 7:03:04 PM
Of 22 Canadian Prime Ministers, 17 practiced law or went to law school.
Posted by: Adrian at Jan 23, 2008 7:04:11 PM
There are a lot of reasons, a couple that I didn't see mentioned above.
1. the sheer number of lawyers in the U.S.
2. path dependence (people become lawyers because they want to be politicians)
3. more speculative, perhaps its because they know they'll end up as lobbyists afterwards.
Posted by: Michael Bishop at Jan 23, 2008 7:07:16 PM
I agree with some of the posts above, that our government is designed centrally as a system of laws and attempts to insulate us from individual decision-makers to a greater degree than in other countries. On this playing field law is paramount, where in other countries perhaps more lee-way is given for individuals to freely shape the actions of their government without utilizing laws to as large a degree.
Posted by: Shane M at Jan 23, 2008 7:07:27 PM
I would have to disagree with the idea that money is less important in other political systems outside the United States. Money politics is known basically world-wide, with Japan being an excellent example. Though the LDP did lose several elections, they regained their prominence because they have all the money.
The sheer number of lawyers the USA pumps out each is probably a contributing factor. We simply make too many lawyers, so it makes sense that these guys go into other professions where they could be more successful.
Posted by: Sean Towey at Jan 23, 2008 7:09:06 PM
Personally I think Zippy is nuts about attorneys being the best at making law. All power and wealth were once understood to be zero sum games until around 1776. When politics (or might makes right) was power it was I win you lose. All wealth used to be land. Once again, to gain I must take it from somebody else.
Now we have free (er) markets and modern economists tell us that any voluntary transaction is a win-win. I don't think the lawyers are trained to be comfortable in that environment. Maybe the non-litigators are better. It would be interesting to see what the politician/attorneys predominant area of practice was.
Posted by: Alan Coffey at Jan 23, 2008 7:11:18 PM
It's not quite half if you look at the numbers. 37.2% of the House of Representatives are lawyers. 58% of the Senate. Overall it's 41.1%.
You are probably correct to assume that that it is higher than most places. Canada for example: 15.3% of the House of Commons are lawyers. 25.7% of the Senate. For a total of 17.9%. So that makes the US have more than double the amount of lawyers.
Strangely though, 77.2% of Canadian Prime Ministers have been lawyers, while only 59.5% of American Presidents were lawyers.
Is it possible that the United States simply has a higher rate of lawyers in total as compared to other countries?
Posted by: Robert S. Porter at Jan 23, 2008 7:11:23 PM
happyjuggler0 is wrong and Dave is right - the "zero-sum" concept is just not true across law as a profession. Zero-sum may apply to certain civil litigation, but it is certainly not the norm.
Like many other professions, lawyers are often facilitators. Transactional attorneys, for instance, specialize in getting things done that ultimately benefit both sides of the deal. This is in fact why the deal is being done in the first place, and, e.g., why you are always hearing about "synergies" and the like when they and their clients talk about the benefit of strategic M&A.
Posted by: MLKH at Jan 23, 2008 7:17:35 PM
Legal practice is wretched work. You deal with debased and or greedy people. You become cynical and debased yourself
You watched LA law and thought it would be cool to be a lawyer. The right or wrong of your views don't matter so long as you win. What is so difficult to understand why lawyers are typical among politicians. Poltics in the U.S.
is dirty business who better than lawyers......Also recall: U.S. has 5% of world population but like 60% of lawyers......Also the power of white shoe law firms cannot be underestimated. I know you guys belive in the fantasy of the free market and the virtue of all things u.s.a, but the large white shoe firms and their regonal counterparts exert
a great deal of influence and tend to line up their own for political power. Yep there are elections but guyes who chooses who gets on the ballot--understand the real world kiddies--its not like intermeidate micro or poli-scie....Capish?
Posted by: robert at Jan 23, 2008 7:22:14 PM
Chris Lawrence touched on one advantage that lawyers have over others in beng politicians is the freedom they have to work part-time. However, it goes beyond this. I suspect that legal knowledge has a long half-life. I scientist or a doctor cannot take off two years and especially not four or six to be a politician without falling almost irremediably behind in his field. A lawyer can. Thus if a lawyer doesn't get re-elected, they can readily return to the practice of law.
Posted by: Acad Ronin at Jan 23, 2008 7:23:37 PM
Some info about prestige of various professions, as detailed in Harris Polls, at http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=793 .
Posted by: hwinva at Jan 23, 2008 7:34:33 PM
MLKH,
Thanks for the explanation (right or wrong), instead of the pointless, unhelpful insult from someone else.
The fact remains that if you talk to anyone in the waitstaff industry they will all tell you that lawyers and foreigners from countries where tipping is automatically included in the bill are the most likely to not tip. If lawyers aren't inculcated with zero sum thinking, why do they act that way?
I'll concede it may indeed be a subset of lawyers. But the empirical evidence in politics supports my contention that lawyers think (or at least act and talk) in zero sum terms more than other elected officials, such as entrepreneurs, doctors et al.
Posted by: happyjuggler0 at Jan 23, 2008 7:37:26 PM
New dumbest thing I have read today: "But the empirical evidence in politics supports my contention that lawyers think (or at least act and talk) in zero sum terms more than other elected officials, such as entrepreneurs, doctors et al."
Posted by: Dave at Jan 23, 2008 7:40:01 PM
This question has been around in the literature for a long time eg. Hain & Peireson, AJPS 19(1), 1975... which apparently expands upon some work of Joseph Schlesinger in the late 1950's. Lots of other stuff out there from way back.
From my (very limited) experience people who are interested in politics are more likely to also pursue a law degree. Being a lawyer isn't a bad fallback position if your political dreams don't pan out - and lawyering is also a good way to get out to the people.
Posted by: ian at Jan 23, 2008 7:48:58 PM
"The fact remains that if you talk to anyone in the waitstaff industry they will all tell you that lawyers and foreigners from countries where tipping is automatically included in the bill are the most likely to not tip. If lawyers aren't inculcated with zero sum thinking, why do they act that way?"
Every day the sun comes up and it sets - if the sun doesn't circle the earth, then why would it appear this way?
Posted by: Matt at Jan 23, 2008 7:53:01 PM
I'd be interested in seeing the empirical evidence. Although if the zero-sum assertion turns out to be true, how do we know if this is due to self-selection or vocational training?
By the way, has anyone read "Invisible Heart" by Russ Roberts? happyjuggler0 reminds me of the main character, Sam Gordon, and Dave is like Laura Silver's lawyer brother.
Posted by: Biomed Tim at Jan 23, 2008 8:05:45 PM
Maybe its because even rats dont want to be politicians.
Steve
Posted by: steve at Jan 23, 2008 8:13:00 PM
Max Weber said that lawyers were the best suited to be legislator in a rational bureucratic state.
Burke alerted against lawyers in his reflections on France.All around the world and in evry time lawyers have neen the majority among politicians.Retoric was a law tool borrowed by parliaments
"Being a military, doctor, police officer, businessman or perhaps even a academic would surely be regarded by many voters as more respectable professions than being a lawyer"
that is being a licensed killer or incompetent that buy 100k toiletts, someone who soon or later would be sued for malparactice or some one who aids in torture,a felon with license to kill, a robber baron or a geek that live in the cloud and presents a rap cd as an academic work
Sure they deserve more respect.
By the way the proportion of lawyer in japan is the same as in the usa.See Best Joel "Lies ,Damned Lies and Statistic"
Posted by: Juan at Jan 23, 2008 8:28:15 PM
As a reason for lawyers' ambitions to become politicians, the practice and study of the law is the only place where one comes into daily contact with the law and problems with the law as it stands. Nearly every other profession is only going to run into things they don't like about the law with respect to the narrow aspect of their profession.
Posted by: Fin Fang Foom at Jan 23, 2008 8:30:56 PM
Gated link to a recent polisci article on the topic: Eakins (2006) Lawyers in the Legislature: The Case of Ohio. Social Science Journal 43(4).
Posted by: Amy at Jan 23, 2008 8:39:04 PM
Ok, I guess I have to speak up for my profession.
First, I have heard every critical thing about lawyers ever, but I have never heard we are bad tippers. Personally, I go out drinking or to lunch or dinner with lawyers all the time, and I've never seen evidence of failure to tip, generously. I'm appalled at low tippers, and its not a trait of lawyers that I have ever observed or even heard about until now.
BUt the real reason that is obvious BS, is how would a waitperson know they were waiting on a lawyer? I have never had a waitress ask me if I was a lawyer. If you've got anything besides "ask any waitperson" I'd love to see it. I think you are trolling with that comment.
Second, the notion that lawyers think in "zero sum" terms is incoherent. I don't know what you think that even means in a legal context.
"Lawyers are effectively trained that your gain is my loss, that I can gain only if you lose." I must have been absent that day. It makes no sense as a measure of damages in a legal context, so I would love to hear a specific example of what you think shows that kind of thinking for lawyers.
Posted by: Wes Johnson at Jan 23, 2008 8:43:32 PM
I think that law school attracts a lot of brilliant people.
But the job field and the work itself can be a grind. So most JD's hope to, if they can, find a fun job that pays well outside of practicing (like politics).
But if they can't find such a job, then they go on being unhappy lawyers.
Posted by: thehova at Jan 23, 2008 9:05:20 PM
I agree with the comment above: if you are running for the job of legislating, having training in laws is pretty useful. I wonder why non-lawyers even apply for a job they have no training for.
Why are there so few academics who flow into politics?
Posted by: guy in the veal calf office at Jan 23, 2008 9:44:48 PM
In the US, a much larger number of judicial and lawyerly jobs are political in nature at least compared to Canada. At what point do you decide, after being a political-but-lawyerly animal, that you can work at a higher level in the system with a lot of the contacts you've already made.
My guess is that it also has some connection to fund-raising, circle of influence and such.
Also, it might be something of a critical mass. People who want to get into politics look at the background of the influential people in politics and law school is well represented and doesn't matter quite as much what you did pre-law (compared to something like med school where you probably have to have a sciency/biology background).
D
Posted by: dph at Jan 23, 2008 9:54:06 PM
why you are always hearing about "synergies" and the like when they and their clients talk about the benefit of strategic M&A.
Isn't it the MBAs, not the JDs, that figure out those synergies? Each side's lawyer tries to get away with as much as they possibly can and it's the fact that each side had lawyers that they get worked out.
Posted by: Mo at Jan 23, 2008 9:57:10 PM
Maybe because being a lawyer sucks. So lawyers look for other opportunities to make a living more often than doctors, military, academics etc. And since others have blazed that trail alread, politics is a good option.Posted by: Danny from Milwaukee at Jan 23, 2008 6:05:24 P
I wonder if this also explains the high number of economists who do interesting work that is not related to the economy.
Posted by: andyoufalldown at Jan 23, 2008 10:18:27 PM
uh, because Congress passes laws? in fact, being a lawyer, or having fine lawyers tell you what is going on, is essential to the work of Congress. Am I missing something, or isn't this totally obvious? I can't tell you what could be less useful than, for instance, economics as a the field of study that prepared one for Congress. No, that's wrong. Pest control would be less useful, although not totally debilitating.
Posted by: rod at Jan 23, 2008 10:31:15 PM
Meanwhile, all 9 members of the Chinese Politburo (as of 2005 anyway) had an engineering background.
Posted by: at Jan 23, 2008 10:32:35 PM
When Tyler posts a question like this, it reminds me of how little he understands beyond his own particular specialty. I don't see an actual economic issue involved here, but perhaps someone can connect the dots for me.
Posted by: Nonpareil at Jan 23, 2008 10:47:14 PM
Political campaigns require lots of money. It helps to be a millionaire. The legal profession is overrepresented among the wealthy, and not surprisingly, also among politicians.
Over 40% of Senators are millionaires, and every single serious candidate for the presidency in 2008 except Huckabee is a millionaire... Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Romney, Giuliani, McCain. Thompson too.
Posted by: at Jan 23, 2008 10:49:39 PM
Practicing law teaches future politicians how to passionately argue for something they don't really believe in. Only lawyers have this background, a fundamental part of campaigning.
As a test of this, do trial lawyers become politicians more often than other types (How many former patent lawyers are in Congress)?
Posted by: W at Jan 23, 2008 11:21:38 PM
It seems like lawyers would be the most savvy at benefiting from rent-extraction through legislation and regulation. I would have to think their knowledge of how the legal system works would give them a greater perspective and advantage at manipulating legislation than other professions. Assuming this to be true, this particular knowledge and professional networks of other lawyers would create the perfect scenario for them to benefit the most from well-funded rent-seekers.
Posted by: Brian Hollar at Jan 23, 2008 11:34:09 PM
Eazy-peazy, in 2 points:
1. Lawyers love to argue.
2. The rank and file almost always aspires to run the joint, so law practitioners aspire to be chief lawmaker.
Posted by: kranky krittet at Jan 23, 2008 11:56:39 PM
What about, "This law is crap, I could write better law than this"?
Posted by: Jacqueline at Jan 24, 2008 1:05:02 AM
I can't believe only one commenter mentioned de Tocqueville.
"Lawyers belong to the people by birth and interest, and to the aristocracy by habit and taste; they may be looked upon as the connecting link between the two great classes of society...
I am not ignorant of the defects inherent in the character of this body of men; but without this admixture of lawyer-like sobriety with the democratic principle, I question whether democratic institutions could long be maintained...
In America there are no nobles or literary men, and the people are apt to mistrust the wealthy; lawyers consequently form the highest political class and the most cultivated portion of society...
The influence of legal habits extends beyond the precise limits I have pointed out. Scarcely any political question arises in the United States that is not resolved, sooner or later, into a judicial question. Hence all parties are obliged to borrow, in their dail controversies, the ideas, and even the language, peculiar to judicial proceedings."
I think the short answer is the countries with civil law (i.e. those colonized by the English) are countries where lawyers are more likely to have relatively more influence.
Posted by: yank_in_Oz at Jan 24, 2008 4:16:19 AM
A few random comments, not yet a unified theory:
In political discussion groups I've frequented before, almost without fail, it is the lawyers that constantly comment all day long.
To put a fine point on it, what time they don't spend sitting on their office chair, they spend self-promoting. A natural fit with politicking.
Also, I think you could look back further at the type of people who become lawyers. I think they are the type of people who like rules. And, in my experience, the people who like rules the most are the ones most willing to bend them in their favor. The lawyer's job is to bend the rules in their favor or their clients favor, or to use the rules as a cudgel against their adversaries. Constituencies are like clients.
They don't really have a boss, and they control their time,so they have the flexibility to run for office. Looking at why an engineer or a doctor could not feasibly be successful at politics is the flip side of the coin.
Their profession and hobby of studying the law and politics is transferrable.
They are already lawyers, so it's not a huge step down in status to politics.
Regulator capture: The job of old lawyers is to write laws that can only be interpreted by young lawyers. Established interests who want to use the law as a cudgel want confounding laws, so they appreciate this situation.
Real estate agents get to put their names on road signs and get paid for it. And, like a lot of lawyers, getting their name out there in a campaign will help future business. An engineer gets no such benefit for his core profession.
We'd be a lot better off with fewer lawyer politicians. "Diversity" is great for all but legislation? I think not. But for many of these reasons, non-lawyers face an uphill battle.
Posted by: Andrew at Jan 24, 2008 6:56:04 AM
Consider also why there aren't more MBA's and engineers in Congress. My guess is that they would find the work boring, and a severe deviation from their ultimate career plans. I assume that brilliant men who spend a few years studying law must enjoy law. For me, business law was the most boring class of my MBA program.
To those readers who work for law firms: wouldn't holding state public office increase one's chance of becoming a partner? Wouldn't a state or national office holder add prestige to most law firms?
Posted by: John Dewey at Jan 24, 2008 7:57:27 AM
I agree with Dave (on all 4 of his points) and MLKH.
Lawyers are not trained to win at any cost, although some litigators and trial lawyers behave that way.
Lawyers are trained to ask. As in "Don't ask, don't get."
Oh, and the next time you need a lawyer, you can decide if you want one who will be a zealous advocate for you, or one who will "try to do the right thing," whatever that is. Go ahead, it will be your money. Or maybe we could come up with another system to decide disputes: armed contests and trial by fire or drowning used to be popular....
I drove a cab for 6 years, and the worst tippers were doctors, airline pilots, and lawyers (until in my last 2 years of driving they heard I was a law student); they were all CHEAP, and those 3 occupations seem to have many folks with large egos.... And how did I know what they did for a living? Uniforms, and simple conversation. (And the airline pilots were the most arrogant of the lot: flying-bus drivers….)
The best tippers, by a long shot, were restaurant folks and other cabbies. And I am a VERY generous tipper to this day, especially to wait staff and cabbies.
"Plain English" is a good idea, unless it turns out to be not so plain when the law is applied.
Then you have a LOT more legislator-judges trying to decide what the law means.
(See Toby Dorsey's "Legislative Drafter's Deskbook, Chapter 6, Writing Effectively, especially Sec. 6.31, Beware "Plain Language".)
I am personally disturbed by the large number of lawyers in politics.
There oughta be a law!
Posted by: chug at Jan 24, 2008 8:24:37 AM
It seems there are two issues: 1) why lawyers are suitable/attracted to politics and 2) why politicians in the USA are especially likely to be lawyers.
Most of the comments address 1. Few really touch on 2. As the commenter about China suggested, in many countries, engineering and economics are more prevalent in politicians' bios than in the US. I suspect that's because those countries have a narrow elite pool from which politicians and civil servants are drawn. And in many/most of those places engineering and other technical disciplines are consistent with a school based meritocracy as a means of filtering for raw ability.
In contrast, top US universities are not as consistently meritocratic (on purely test-based academic standards) as other countries and going to a top school does not guarantee a position in management and the civil service with the same degree of certainty. It is probably true that in the US, a top degree gets you your first job but doesn't do much afterwards.
Posted by: jn at Jan 24, 2008 9:10:17 AM
Because they're good at it. I spent years attending local government meetings every week and I developed a theory on who made the best board members. They are: lawyers (because, let's face it, you're dealing with their area of specialty), accountants (because they understand numbers), academics (because they're good learners), and stakeholders (real estate agents have a fiscal interest in school districts, so they make good school board members; neighborhood association members make good city commissioners). By the way, many of the same types of people do well on Jeopardy.
Posted by: Ted Craig at Jan 24, 2008 9:23:11 AM
In America there are no nobles or literary men, and the people are apt to mistrust the wealthy; lawyers consequently form the highest political class and the most cultivated portion of society. They have therefore nothing to gain by innovation, which adds a conservative interest to their natural taste for public order. If I were asked where I place the American aristocracy, I should reply without hesitation that it is not among the rich, who are united by no common tie, but that it occupies the judicial bench and the bar.
Posted by: Tocqueville at Jan 24, 2008 9:28:50 AM
"I agree with Dave (on all 4 of his points) and MLKH.
Lawyers are not trained to win at any cost, although some litigators and trial lawyers behave that way.
"
Probably right, though most people are exposed to the lawyer who acts this way.
And Dave does little to disprove the notion that all lawyers are assholes.
Posted by: Tom at Jan 24, 2008 9:46:17 AM
I think the point about lawyers as the professionals who can most afford to take a few years off from their work to dabble in politics is important. Bankers and business executives are more likely to wait until they retire to enter politics (see Paulson, Corzine, etc) because they would find it much more difficult to continue their careers if they were to leave the political arena.
It's an interesting question, though, what would make the best background for a politician. I've tried to answer that a bit here.
Posted by: Matt Clifford at Jan 24, 2008 9:53:45 AM
Seems to me the reason lawyers go into politics in the first place is often to build a client base. They take low level positions to build credibility and contacts and that leads to higher political elections. With the contacts and political connections they can often direct who gets contracts and then legal work referred back is soon to come. Often consulting work or board seats are highly likely upon the end of the political career to take advantage of the contacts.
Many insurance individuals enter the profession for the same reason. Instant credibility and contacts.
Posted by: Steve Roberts at Jan 24, 2008 10:34:45 AM
There was a book by Alan Ehrenhalt called the United States of Ambition which is out of print which deals with this question: Why do we get the politicians that we get? He explores several elections at the local, state and national level and tries to discuss why certain types of politicians enter the race. It's a little date so may no longer be relevant today. The point I took away from the book was that there was a certain self selection process as politics evolved from part time low paying job (which tended to appeal to housewives, business people taking advantage of the position to further their business opportunities) to the full time job that it is today (which attracts a professional type that knows how to organize and package themselves e.g. activists (who may be lawyers by training, but never practiced law).
On another note, HW Brands's biography of Andrew Jackson (who was also a lawyer) also noted that the surest way for someone to enter politics was to become a lawyer although I don't know the basis for his assertion.
Posted by: bccheah at Jan 24, 2008 10:55:26 AM
I have long thought that we should ban lawyers fom running for elected offices. Lawyers make fine advisers but poor decision-makers.
Posted by: jorod at Jan 24, 2008 10:56:23 AM
This is like asking why so many architects are trained in architecture.
Law school primarily educates you to the unexpected effects of hastily implemented legal rules. The law reaches across many subjects, but a working knowledge of the law can help in drafting any statute. That cannot be said of any other study (except perhaps economics).
"Lawyers are effectively trained that your gain is my loss, that I can gain only if you lose."
My J.D. missed this point, instead emphasizing a variety of scholastic theories of justice and equity, so I have to side with Dave here.
The J.D. also emphasized the high ethical duties of anyone in the profession. After the J.D., ethical knowledge is tested both on the bar and on the MPRE, and ethical behavior is scutinized by the state bar association.
So lawyers have 1) attained a knowledge and training uniquely relevant to all lawmaking, and 2) undergone some ethical scrutiny.
The question should be: why aren't more politicians lawyers?
Posted by: Thomas B. at Jan 24, 2008 11:05:27 AM
Thanks for answering the question, and sorry about the stupid mistake in phrasing the question.
I don't believe the explanation that since politicians make law, lawyers are apt to be especially good at being politicians.
After all, learning what the law says is just an exercise in memorization and can be done very quickly if you suddenly need to know the details of federal banking law or some other area.
Posted by: Johan Richter at Jan 24, 2008 11:11:54 AM
One reason I haven't seen and maybe I simply missed it is the opportunity cost. A lawyer can take a sabbatical from work to spend the large amount of time that a campaign requires. In fact their bosses/partners may even encourage it due to the ability to build a client base as mentioned above. Most other people can't do that. The only other people I can think of who can do that are business owners who are also represented fairly well and academics who generally are not interested in political office.
Posted by: H man at Jan 24, 2008 11:15:09 AM
I think the reason is more social, than personality driven. The thruth is that in every generation there is a vocation on the rise, and often to the point of fad. This is a cross pollination of the attractiveness of the emplyment market, the relitive honor imparted by the position, and the offer of power to those engaging in this course of study. Those entering higher education tend to be swayed towards these disicplines.
This trend has two main outcomes towards the thesis of this comment. 1) The elite minds of every generation tend to concentrate in these disciplines, and 2) there are many followers prducing an excess of supply in these professions. As the field becomes over populated, some (those with the capacity for mobility) will beging examining options outside the field.
Finally, the power offered by the emerging field, tends to call to those with a desire to lead and/or change the world. Ironically, the same trends that lead to one persuing politics...
We can see it today in the current generation, as the greatest minds (and many, many others) are drawn to the world of software and the Internet. The next generation, biotech is likely to be the calling, and education systems are seeing this trend on the rise. In the '70's, the field of choice was Law. This is why Laywers are an over represented force in American politics today. In the 60's being a doctor was the elite field, explaining the slight (but diminishing) over representation of doctors. In way of a prediction based on these trends, the '80's held a strong bias towards business, and I will expect a swell of businessmen to start appearing on the political scene soon.
Posted by: Zallen at Jan 24, 2008 12:04:11 PM
Johan-
Nobody said lawyers were good politicians. Being a lawyer, however, is very helpful in being a legislator. To the extent that people back and vote for candidates that are going to be effective, having a law degree will be helpful.
In the US, at least, very little of the study of law is an exercise in memorization. Law school and the bar test law students ability to apply law to facts.
Yes, anyone can look up a law. But context is important. That's the reason why law school is not specialized, since laws do not exist in a vacuum.
Posted by: Dave at Jan 24, 2008 12:18:19 PM
In a good world you would say that lawyers have a better understanding of the law than a normal citizen - and to some extent I am sure that is true. One other person said that being a lawyer was not very prestigious - I would disagree. I would say that most people consider a law degree to be both a symbol of status and a representation of higher than average drive or intelligence. While a lot of lawyers turn out to be scumbags, they have also proved that they can succeed in a career that is stressful. I would hope they would apply as much effort to lawmaking. This from the mouth of a law student...
Posted by: Ryan at Jan 24, 2008 12:46:50 PM
The thing that is most striking to me is the gross misconception of what a modern legal education entails. Statements like "Lawyers are effectively trained that your gain is my loss, that I can gain only if you lose." and "learning what the law says is just an exercise in memorization" are laughable. This is not what is taught in law school. It just isn't.
Lawyers do not memorize the law. They learn how the law works. They study cases in which the law has been applied in the real world, which demonstrate how unintended consequences arise in the application of the law, and how such consequences have been dealt with in various jurisdictions. They also learn to apply the law to specific factual scenarios, and study the evolution of law through time. Law school also teaches the different theoretical frameworks which form the basis of our law, and explain why the law works the way it does, such as natural rights theory, public choice theory, and law and economics.
As for this "my gain is your loss" stuff, lawyers (at least in modern law schools) usually take a course or courses in alternative dispute resolution, which stresses exactly the opposite. Even for those lawyers who were not expressly trained in this area, litigators usually learn pretty early how to come up with practical and creative solutions to settle cases out of court (as most cases do), which benefits both sides.
When I was in law school, I used to think how could anyone be a legislator and NOT know the things I was learning. How can you change the law if you don't even know what the law is now, much less what laws were tried in the past, and how things actually work in application once laws are enacted? So many people have misconceptions about how the law really works that it is scary that someone without legal training can be entrusted to change our laws.
A non-lawyer going into the legislature is like a peace-activist thinking he can disarm a nuclear bomb by the shear force of his good intentions, even though he knows next to nothing about how the bomb actually works. So really, my question is why there are ANY non-lawyers in the legislature.
Posted by: Doug at Jan 24, 2008 2:06:52 PM
Fascinating.
With the addendums added by Cowen, he seems to be implicitly endorsing the concept that lawyers dominate politics becuase becoming a politician somehow fits into their lifestyle and career.
I don't know how many lawyers the folks who are advocating this position know, but there is very little truth to the assumption that lawyers are somehow the masters of their schedule. Frankly, it's plainly ridiculous. The vast majority of lawyers that end up in politics did one of two things before entering politics: they either worked for the government and had standard 9-5 schedules, or they worked for firms where they were tied to hourly billing requirements.
The monumental leap of logic required to bypass the simple Occam's razor answer that the people who choose to go into making laws and are good at it may have also *studied* laws is simply astounding.
Instead, we will posit baseless assumptions: that lawyers have easily modifiable schedules, or are better at making money on the side.
Bob Tollison's argument is that because lawyers dominate low-pay legislatures, it is because lawyers can make money on the side. But isn't the significantly more plausible analysis that when you reduce incentives to run for the legislature by reducing the pay, the pool of persons interested in running is going to tend towards those who have incentives to run for reasons other than the pay? For example, I dunno, because they are *actually interested* in law, policy and government, as opposed to business, medicine or engineering?
Sheesh.
Posted by: Dave at Jan 24, 2008 3:42:03 PM
Robert Heinlein, in "Take Back Your Government" (ISBN-10: 0671721577) discusses this; the answer is, in part, career flexibility, and some experience dealing with government. Successful lawyers are also good salesmen, a skill which transfers directly into campaigning success.
Posted by: Anthony at Jan 24, 2008 5:48:11 PM
Most lawyers are dreadful salesman, which is partly why a lot of them went to law school in the first place. As others have pointed out, lawyers in general do not have "career flexibility." Many work 60-80 hour weeks or more, and taking even normal vacations is often frowned upon.
Posted by: Doug at Jan 24, 2008 8:17:29 PM
I haven't had the time to read all 70+ of the comments, so this might have been hashed through already, but wouldn't it make sense that both the legal profession and politics would disproportionately attract people who like law? So, therefore, we would expect a lot of overlap between the two?
As thought provoking as the legal profession's affording it's practitioners the ability to put their careers on hold for the campaign season, I'm not really sure that we even have to go there.
Posted by: Scott Wood at Jan 26, 2008 1:06:35 AM
Couple points I want to make here. The numbers of "lawyers" in politics is actually only a portion of people with law degrees in politics, as many never practice and go straight from school to working in politics. In fact, a majority of career politicians have law school degrees, as do their staffs.
The other view comes as someone who has been involved in local politics for the last few years. Lawyers make up not just a large portion of the people in office, but those running for the lowest levels (school board, county/city councils, commissioners). The reasons for this are threefold. First, a fair percentage of lawyers go into law with the intention of eventually getting involved in politics. Second, they have the freedom, both in time and finance to run for office. The early positions pay less then most career paths and someone who is supporting a family often isnt able to take the time off to run, or to take the pay cut to take the position. Lawyers often make a better living, allowing them to have more freedom in making financial decisions. Additionally they can work part-time or resume practicing when they arent in session. Finally, many careers specifically prevent people from entering politics. In many counties civil employees (police, teachers, ect.) must resign their position if they are running for office locally, preventing many of them from taking that step. This also includes active-duty military officers.
I also agree with those who said that the sales aspect of being a lawyer helps in politics. But if that was the case why don't we see more actually salespeople run for office? One reason, in my opinion, has already been covered here. While running for office, and serving for a few years can have a positive effect on the career of a lawyer, the same cant be said for most other industries. A salesman must be careful not to offend potential customers, and politics inherently alienates a portion of the population.
Posted by: Tracy at Jan 27, 2008 12:58:18 PM
Perhaps it's just that both lawyers and politicians have a positive view of government,
and its ability to be a force for good. Alot of the business people I know, for example,
view government as bloodsucking parasites. Why would they want to be a part of that?
And don't quite a number of lawyers and politicians believe in the forced
redistribution of wealth to achieve some social ends? Is it really that different to
sue to transfer wealth, or impose taxes to achieve it? Most other professions
rely on voluntary trade, that presumably benefits both buyer and seller.
Posted by: Jeff at Jan 27, 2008 8:22:44 PM
Speaking only for myself, lawschool was really the place that I first became immersed in structured constructive dialogue about public policy issues, examining implications, etc.; only then did I know for sure whether or not I would be interested in politics as an advocation (which would presumably entail a career doing the same?)...
Posted by: Ltrain at Jan 28, 2008 1:03:39 PM
Lawyers often serve as intermediaries between people with very different interests (sometimes across deep social divisions like race and class), and translate the interests of lay clients into the mechanisms of the legal system and back. They regulate conflict, negotiate, and (at least sometimes) seek common ground. I think those are key skills for representatives in a legislative body, and they are not necessarily cultivated by, for instance, medical, military, or academic work.
Posted by: Lucas at Jan 28, 2008 3:27:10 PM
It's simple matter of interest, motivation, expertise:
(1) Lawyers study the law and therefore are more likely to have opinions on what the law ought to be, the same way a doctor is more likely to have an opinion on how to treat a patient than a lawyer; (2) Lawyers have a natural incentive to want to affect the law, since statutes, policies, and regulations influence how much money they make, how easy problem solving is, and what obstacles to certain results exist; and (3) regardless of how well attorneys may "govern" (which is actually not the job of a legislator), the vast majority of elected officials are responsible for crafting legislation and other rules (or dealing with them), which are areas attorneys have more expertise in than say, firemen, military officers, or doctors. Not to mention that to be a lawyer, you at least have to have graduated from college and a three-year accredited law school, which screens for intelligence more than several careers mentioned as more "prestigious" in Richer's comments.
Posted by: Bandwagon Smasher at Feb 8, 2008 5:26:38 PM
提供钢管无缝钢管数据恢复心理咨询心理辅导与心理治疗bjxlzx.cn等服务
Posted by: baom at Feb 9, 2008 12:24:38 AM
There is way too much talk of why lawyers and doctors are representing us in our political system when instead, we should begin to understand what the job of "representing the constituency" was originally all about to begin with. Let's face it...when we needed a voice in either the county seat or the state or even in the nation's capital, who best understood our needs and wants and who had the time to leave work and vote for us? It used to be the blacksmith, the clothier, the dress maker, the teacher, the mechanic or whomever had the ability to communicate and understand our needs. Then they also had to have the ability to make the long trek to the center of the political arena and have the voice of authority and persistence to have our voices heard. This all changed when we, the voting public, became comfortable enough to not pay attention to what was going on and the almighty dollar became the measure of what everything revolves around in this country. The word "Prostitution" comes to mind.
Posted by: Joe Wadlow at Apr 25, 2008 8:52:32 AM
At the risk of being quoted as the dumbest thing someone read today, I'll phrase it in question form.
·Why do we need so many lawyers OR politicians OR laws?
·Do we honestly need to make a new law every day / week / month?
·Why do we need someone to decipher or find loop holes in the "beast" (A.K.A. law)?
·If a new law is important enough, does it make sense to let the population vote on it?
·What are the checks/balances against passing too many laws?
·Off on a different tangent, what are the checks/balances against a disillusioned voting populace?
- Why can't I vote on the important issues, but only on someone who will "represent" me?
I realize there are downfalls and logistic problems with the population voting on everything. However, what is going to keep bureaucracy from becoming an uncontrollable beast? Lawyers?
Posted by: TC at May 23, 2008 10:18:33 AM
